"Harley W. Daugherty" wrote in message k.net...
"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article 402a7579$1@bg2., "Matt Wiser"
wrote:

If you had been given the task of choosing the plaform for a
next-generation
gunship, would the C-130J be the platform base, or would an as yet
unbuilt
A400M be chosen? I'd take an AC-130 based on the J, but use the
stretched
J, with two instead of one 25mms, one 40mm, and the 105. Add single rail
launchers underwing for Hellfire.

We've already had the AC-5 suggested...

sweet Jesus..................... What kinda loadout you put on that
monstrosity?



I'd prefer a AC-17 variant....


Harley W. Daugherty
--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.


C-17 has 3x the max takeoff weight of a AC-130, C-5 5x. Even with
structural strengthening, that is a lot of leftover weight to play
with. However, not a chance in hell are C-5s getting used as gunships.
If anyone is an AFA member, read last month's magazine. The Air Force
is doing everything it can to keep the cargo C-5s hauling as much as
possible, and with little or no prospect of new construction of them,
they aren't going to divert airframes from Air Mobility Command to
Spec Ops. The C-17 is still in production, so that is another story. A
C-17's MTW is around 500000 lbs versus about 150000 lbs for an AC-130.
Even with the weight to strenghten the airframe, that is a lot of
volume and lift to use for guns, ammo, sensors, jammers, missiles
etc...